What are some good arguments in favor of political correctness?

common decency

youtube.com/watch?v=wuBLuow7FvM

So it's common decency that white women are forced to breed with blacks?

>human
>decency

He lacks the wit and charm his brother had. Very sad!

t. skim milk drinker

this

It seems to be something along the lines of censorship or policing hate speech, where speech is closely related to conduct and thought. The disagreements arise in regards to the concept of censorship, what constitutes 'hate speech,' and just how closely related language (speech) is to action and thought.

I'm not great with definitions, though, so maybe I should have just said "I know it when I see it!"

freedom of speech

Anecdote that really made it click for me. I experienced a first case example of this recently. A friend of mine is Jewish and I often send some jew related banter his way. I've got a clear conscience though and that transpires in my jokes which don't really ever go too far because my friend understands they're just jokes. Recently though this acquaintance of ours has started making lots of really edgy comments about Jews in general. I feel like my making jokes made this guy feel comfortable about his prejudices, because it only started happening after he witnessed me making those types of jokes.
I have decided to try and make these sort of jokes only when it's me and him or at most other people I can trust not to take the message the wrong way.
Which is why I can understand that some jokes, while harmless in and of themselves, can negatively affect behaviour.

Is that really an accurate description of political correctness tho?

Political correctness is NOT forcing white women to NOT breed with blacks

I think you're referring to something different from political correctness, you're thinking of liberal propaganda as a whole, political correctness is forms a Venn diagram with liberal propaganda, it's only a small part of liberal propaganda, and not all political correctness is liberal propaganda, some of it is just people genuinely trying to be nice and treat some topics delicately if people are sensitive to those topics

There aren't any.

As George Carlin said, it's fascism pretending to be manners.

If you want to read an "argument" in favor of it, try the shrilly entitled "Must we Defend the Nazis?"

The problem with the book, however is that it does not really try persuade you that political correctness is a good thing, as it merely preaches to the already converted.

So that you can implement fascism by using the liberal faggots as pawns in your own fucking game

in political areas, that respect and knowledge of the cultural backgrounds of the Other don't hinder successful negotiations.
Outside of the political area, no one, except to show that you are not a douchebag who goes out of her way to insult people. Fag.

Only two posters who can function beyond reactionary mindlessness

I have no idea how PC has become the exclusive property of liberals

Conservatives, the right, etc have their own set of norms of political correctness. Nowadays they have somehow weaponized the term to bash liberals but PC is very much alive in their value system

>everyone who disagrees with PC is a mindless reactionary

Wow you sure showed me.

What does "forcing" even mean in this context? Is it a psychological force applied through discourse? If you accept that words are capable of making people perform or refrain from performing certain actions, and that repression of certain words is therefore capable of the same thing, then you admit that the control of discourse is effectively the same thing as controlling actions. The notion of perfect equilibrium where a given mode of discourse only negates pressure but does not apply any is a fantasy, unless you believe there is some form of "free will" that allows for independent agency.

Not good arguments.

Understanding the way others think makes sense in purely rational terms. Automatically 'respecting' (that is, refusing to criticize or treat objectively) all elements of all cultures is mindless and leads to serious ethical problems.

As for the second point, that assumes that (A) people who feel insulted are always right, always have a good reason to feel insulted, and (B) they always deserve not to be insulted, or even have a right not to be. Both of these effectively remove to some degree the responsibility to think, to have one's own ideas and further implies that speech ought to be regulated and policed.

I think the term 'political correctness' is a stupid one, but it represents a very sinister line of thought for the above reasons.

That's one kind of political correctness, the prescriptive kind, the kind people try to enforce by notifying your boss you said a mean thing

There's other motivations and practices for political correctness though, for instance, to many people, myself included, it doesn't matter whether somebody is "right" to feel insulted, and it also doesn't matter whether they deserve to be insulted, I choose not to insult people anyway.

If I'm going to be communicating to somebody, I want to be understood and to that end, I want the recipient be as receptive as possible to what I'm saying.

I'm perfectly capable of phrasing what I want to say in a number of different ways, so I don't see why I wouldn't want to foster a constructive dialogue by respecting people's desires to be spoken to in a certain way, regardless of whether it's arbitrary to me or stupid.

This is ESPECIALLY true if I'm going to be criticizing this person or their ideas

Is that Betty Draper on the right?

shut up faggot

Critique of Pure Tolerance by Marcuse.

It's not a convincing argument, but his idea is that a truly liberating politics would have to ban all right-wing or conservative speech to prevent subversion of emancipation; this isn't just racial slurs for him, but things like stating opposition to Social Security too.

>is a real phenomenon with tangible effects being promoted by those of a similar ideological framework.
wrong_trump.gif

It's a scapegoat to prevent the public from focusing on real issues, it avoids tangible effects in every sense of the phrase.

Are they putting a gun against their heads?

>Misunderstanding a clear point
Sure you show us who you are.

>If you want to read an "argument" in favor of it, try the shrilly entitled "Must we Defend the Nazis?"
I love how leftists don't even believe their own rhetoric.

"People are equal, so we have to artificially prop up that equality by selectively supporting and condemning groups"

The idea that you need to lookout for others to bring about equal dignity is a fundamental admission they don't have equal dignity.

You have to go back.

Firstly, you can choose never to insult anyone if you like. But I object to being told by others what I can and can't say.

Secondly, if you don't care whether they have a good reason or not to feel insulted, then what do you say if they feel insulted by criticism itself? What if their demands to be spoken to in a certain way means it is impossible to say what you think? What if the person you're trying to have a 'constructive dialogue' with (let's say they take some extreme ideological position) wants nothing from you except your death or submission? Would you still feel obligated to be extra nice to them all the time? What if doing your best not to insult someone meant doing or saying something you consider immoral or dishonest?

Also, to knowingly do or say something you think is stupid seems rather pathetic to me.

Help me pull this story to SJW'ry Veeky Forums,

Any ideology is a way to reduce your values to a code, a set of rules and policies for society, it expresses your values as a human being. The problem arises when you consider that following an ideology correctly will lead to a society that expresses your values. The danger of that is that the world cannot be reduced to a single code and singular causes, situations will always arise that do not follow within the rules of an ideology, yet the ideologue will follow the rules of the ideology regardless of context or consequencs, the evaluation of the ideology become obscured.
Another danger is that people often create an adamantine connection between ideology and identity,
the very act of questioning your own ideology then becomes personal and inconceivably offensive.
For example, when the Soviet Union was crumbling, many members concluded that the economic ruin was the direct and sometimes only result of not being Communist enough, the singular answer was that the Communist people of Russia had failed the ideology, not the ideology the people.

Not even the same user. Fuck off to your containment board and never leave again.

>conservatives don't actually believe you should be free to say literally anything
Well, my mind is blown.

Consider the following: is freedom of speech based on a completely untenable distinction between words and actions?

Seems to me the essential logic is summed up in the child's saying 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'. But that seems evidently bullshit- you can cause a lot of damage just by using words. If you accept that, though, why are you free to say horrible things but not free to punch somebody in the face?

Because that's actual physical harm. People might say something you don't like. Being a grown up means getting over it.

So I guess bullying is fine unless it gets strictly physical?

Whether it's fine or moral isn't the question - you seemed to suggest that verbal abuse ought to be legislated against.

It's about the aetiology of the damage. Your words may cause a punch to be thrown, or someone to hang themselves, but the facial scar is caused by the punch and the death is caused by the hanging.

Who is responsible for an action is, at last, its final actor. It is with them that the course could have been thwarted, and via them that the course was furthered to its end.

The question's always who plays the deciding role, and in most cases we defer to the theory of individuality and say that the deciding role was the last actor's, but not always: cases of employers being guilty before their employees, for example, or of loved ones inciting other loved ones to criminal acts.

But what needs to be considered is the huge difference between inciting and encouraging. A recommendation that someone commit a crime is not incitement. It is only incitement if the individuals are not in a position to use their agency to do other than commit the crime.

There aren't any.

Yes.

No, there are laws against harassment. Repeatedly targeting someone with verbal abuse is not the same thing as free speech, and pretending otherwise is fucking retarded senpai.

The laws are against the 'repeatedly targeting' part, not the speech itself - important distinction. Saying what you like is a necessary condition of a free society.

That's hilarious, even high school level philosophy has a better understanding of the concept of freedom of speech than this post.

Just to clarify, I am not he same user as Well, verbal abuse in the classroom IS legislated against in a lot of jurisdictions.

But most things reactionaries claim have been outlawed from debate haven't. Almost everything Milo says is well within the boundaries of legality. PC has always worked primarily on the grounds of social backlash.

I was just following this guy's reasoning

No disagreements there, but that's not the same thing as bullying.

I agree with that, nobody wants to be told what they **can and can't** say, however I think it's reasonable to tell people what they **could or should** say

>what if they feel insulted by criticism itself?

I just make an effort to not insult people, if they still feel insulted so be it. I'll try to understand their point of view but some people won't see eye to eye with me and won't be able to have a civil conversation with me about some topics

>what if they demand to be spoken to in a certain way that prevents me from saying what I think?

I'm willing to call a trans person their preferred pronouns and in the same conversation tell them that I don't think hormones and surgery are healthy. There are definitely some SJW types that simply refuse any kind of criticism whatsoever from a white male. That's fine, I don't need to speak with them. All I'm saying is that I will make an effort to speak to people how they would like to be treated, especially ones I disagree with heavily, and I also think it would benefit most people to try to do this as well. It doesn't solve all communications issues but I think it's worth doing.

>what if they want death or submission?

Probably a pretty short conversation. I would only be nice to such a person if I went into the conversation not knowing their views. I.e. If they look like a Muslim, I'll try to be open to the possibility that they are one of those "ISIS isn't real Islam" Muslims. If I had the impression they were a strict shariah law type I wouldn't engage them at all. Constructive conversation isn't always possible

>what if being extra nice meant lying or other immorality?

I have other moral concerns besides being politically correct, honesty takes precedent. I don't, however, think honesty means volunteering every negative thing I believe about a person or group of people out of nowhere

>to knowingly say something you think is stupid is pathetic to you

I hear you, I think it depends on how stupid and in what way I think it's stupid. For example, I don't think transgender people should really be so concerned with identifying with a specific gender. It makes more sense to just be the sex you were born with and the rest is just preference. A dude can wear women's clothes and makeup. It may not be all that socially acceptable but calling yourself a girl doesn't help that issue. But if me calling some dude "she" makes them feel more comfortable around me, I'm willing to do that, I don't think it's that stupid, and most importantly, I don't think pronouns are so important that I care about calling somebody the "wrong pronoun"

To the libcucks here:

If POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is NOT an degenerate force, then how come there are white women who prefer the company of black men over me when -- objectively -- I am inherently superior?

Nice false flag

Anyway for the record I think white people are at a sensitive period, and political correctness ought to include being respectful to white people, instead of the blatant negative generalizations we get in the media and the weird sins of the father stuff, like bringing up slavery like modern white people everywhere should feel guilty

>It is only incitement if the individuals are not in a position to use their agency to do other than commit the crime
Surely that's way too strict- you'd need actual literal mind control to do that. If I offer you a million dollars to shoplift an item, you're 'in a position to use your agency' to refuse.

While that 'sins of the fathers' stuff does happen, historical inequalities are also relevant in that they can cause present-day inequalities. It's not that you should feel guilty, it's that you should be aware that this stuff still has consequences.

>Inherently superior
>Post on image boards

lol

Wait, so what do you think the argument against that is?

Just in case you didn't know. Political correctness isn't a law. It's about social pressure. Basically you're getting ostracized because you're behaving like an assholes or petulant child.

Any argument that "I should be allowed to say and Racist/sexist/xenophobic shit I want" is dumb because you are allowed. What you want to do is litigate people's responses to those opinions, but what you don't seem to understand is that there are in fact social consequences for things you do even if there aren't legal consequences.

- politeness
- less space for attention whores like milo
- makes you more aware of the wording, thereby trains your language skills

I think we're mostly in agreement then. I just feel you're overestimating the value of always giving people what they want and underestimating the importance of challenging their beliefs directly.

Regarding your last point, I think that pronouns are an interesting illustration of the point. Now I'm perfectly willing to refer to a transsexual woman as 'she' because, generally speaking, I am willing to be polite and I can sympathize with their situation. I definitely don't, however, consider it a moral duty to do so, which is something the political correctness obsessives are desperately trying to assert. And I simply refuse to refer to an individual as 'they/them' as some people apparently insist on, as not only do I consider it pretentious and narcissistic, but also an abuse of the English language and that's something I try never to do. They don't have to like my refusal to comply with their demands, but they should damn well put up with it.

But that's exactly the problem - there is increasing demand for it not be allowed and that's the problem.

The argument, as I understand it, isn't so much that we (white people) should feel "guilt" over slavery and past social norms of formalized inequality as it is that we should remain aware of them and consider the various ways in which those inequalities have/have not yet been worked out of our larger social structure.
Or, that slavery isn't something to just "get over" because 1) it was more historically recent than the way many people think about it would lead one to believe and 2) the societal effects have, to a degree, carried forward to the present day. Staying specific to US history/culture as expressed through legislation, consider the throughline from slavery -> segregation/Jim Crow -> less blatantly racist but still discriminatory practices w/r/t voting rights, hiring processes and loan approval (i.e. access to financial opportunity and personal/professional growth via the systems currently in place and presented as necessary in certain situations), arrest/prosecution rates among racial categories for similar crimes, etc.

Now, you may say those connections are imagined or constructed, simply another tool in the ongoing culture wars and liberal self-flagellation, but there seems to me to be enough evidence to claim our power structure is still weighted toward whitey, even if to a lesser degree than in the past.